Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Mar 3, 2007 11:39am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again


> Brewster

>Thanks for the response.

>There are still points which don't quite make sense to me. Can you confirm that you are Brewster Kahle the Director and Co-Founder? (http://www.archive.org/about/bios.php) Are you a 'techie'?

Yes.


>I downloaded the critical clip on Tuesday and at present it isn't clear to me what timecode you're referring to.

it is embedded in the mpeg2 file. beyond that I don't know, but mpeg2 wizards would.

>Nor have you really cleared up what the xml files are and how they relate to timecodes and other data. I asumme they are separate from the .mpg files?

yes, the xml files are separate from the mpg files. these are used for metadata.

>If files were put onto DAT back in 2001 how many files for each clip were stored and retrieved?

1 for the video, and then we sometimes have other files such as electronic program guides and closed caption data, but I believe you guys are concerned with the video.


>How did you know what the timecodes were given the 1GB files downloaded give no clue?

They are in the file.


>Please understand that users have no way of confirming the authenticity of posters to this forum, or even that this site as the genuine site.

Understood. You can do some online research about the Internet Archive to see what we do.

>With all the ire and the odd goings on since the BBC broadcast on 18th February, anything's possible. Many of the '911 Truth forums' are little more than alternative 'evangelical' businesses concerns, and the BBC programme was definitely bad for some of their business, so a retaliatory hit job is not out of the question.

Good to question everything. We have tried to be straight about the files we have. We try to give full access to everything, but in the US, libraries have come under increasing restrictions based on changes in copyright law (see Kahle v Gonzales case for instance).

>The next file is in the BBC sequence *is* downloadable by the way. Why?

>http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg

These issues are in active evolution. We are attempting to make these available streaming. If a balance can be struck that publishers and libraries can work with, we all win. We made it too easy in this case, so we will be tightening it up. Publishing ways to copy the video files so that it is easy for others to do may not help us with this balance.


>System administratively, what makes little sense to me is a) why all of the other files went offline on Tuesday or Wednesday

We took them out of public view because they were downloadable in their original mpeg2 form.

>b) whether they were ever all available (just a few at a phished site would have sufficed for the scam if there had been one), and why were only these few files put back up? The critical files to have put up would have been *other* BBC files, i.e. from earlier in the day, along with similarly timed footage from other newscasters so the BBC clip http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg could have been corroborated.

We would like to get all of these videos back up as they had been for a couple of years after October 11, 2001.

>The problem for users is authenticity. Not only of these files, but of the source.

Yours to judge, but we have tried to make the underlying facts around these recordings and our organization available.

>No disrespect, but we need facts not what people think.

I am happy with the respectful and thoughtful tone of this and your other forum post.

-brewster
Digital Librarian
Internet Archive



>Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Steve Nordby Date: Mar 3, 2007 5:45pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

"We took them out of public view because they were downloadable in their original mpeg2 form."

What is wrong with making the originals available? It is most important for researchers - or frankly anyone interested - to have the originals. If only compressed copies are available, then not all the information is available.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 3, 2007 3:18pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Brewster

Thanks for your patience. Just a few more.

I was also interested in more info on the allgedly edited .xml file associated with the key file (as pointed out by Janice Matthews earlier in the week).

I have two of your 1GB files. Are you saying that the original timecode (time and date from 2001?) are embedded in those? If so, if anyone can point to some software which displays these, please let me know.

http://www.debugmode.com/userforums/viewtopic.php?p=4391&sid=bcca8b76de8c13b486e69ea12af21276

As to the files going offline, I'm puzzled as to why you didn't you just change all the permissions. Would that take so long? Why did it take so long to put up two files (and why not 102, or 202), and why even then, was the second of the two files I mentioned, *still downloadable today if you only put them up so they could be streamed and not downloaded?

Do you understand why I am puzzled?

This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 23:18:07

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Interogator Date: Mar 5, 2007 3:59am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

If possible, can you clear up a few points as it appears that many files were either restored or regenerated on 2nd March 2007. What I am after is a precise chronology of events over the past two weeks. I hope this request is not too much of an imposition. It would seem from the response below, that your organisation accepts that under the circumstances it was not unreasonable to query whether there was an opportunity to download/upload chanages to some of the BBC footage files on your site.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630

What that audit trail would clear up is questions like the following, which I list as just examples:

1) Regarding the original 1GB .mpg files, it would clear up:

a) that you have the original 1GB mpg files for each feed on DAT and that those files were archived in 2001.
b) what date the 1GB files were stamped as?
c) that the dates and times of the file(s) on the tape were the same as those of the 1GB .mpg and other files which were in the bbc200109111654-1736 directory earlier in the week.
d) whether any of the files currently in that directory were over-written from recent restore (e.g. since 1st March 2007 as I see that some of the files are now dated 2nd March 2007)

2) If you still have the .xml files etc from earlier in the week, and if so, what the dates and times of those files are.

3) That the two versions of the streaming files (64K and 256K) were made from the 1GB .mpg file and what the dates of those were earlier in the week. That there is no difference between those there now, and those that were there last Monday.

I'm sure you see the gist of the request. As files could be ownloaded from these directories, could they have been uploaded too?

Thanks.